If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is where the conversation devolves into a "Your guy is worse than our guy" slew of nonsensical bull ****. Have we not done that enough already? Or perhaps we just start a thread for each politician where we can outline all the self serving crap they pull, and every ridiculous quote.

You give people a multiple choice, if they really dislike a politician, they are going to pick the least favorable choice. (that's my theory)

The poll I always point to to demonstrate this point is the poll that showed half of all Democrats believed that Bush either orchestrated 9-11, or had foreknowledge and let it happen.

Are you really going to try and tell me that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are more sensible/logical/reasonable people than Mitch Mcconnell and John Boehner?

Your opinion of polls hasn't moved an inch since I can remember, so, this is not meant to convince you of anything different, but just to inform you. The PPP poll, in the election that just took place, was the most accurate. Again just take that as something to consider.

Although you were not asking me, I find Boehner to be impotent in his position, so the sensible/logical/reasonable equation doesn't quite fit. In his case, the tail has been wagging the dog. In McConnell's case, well today Harry Reid took him up on his offer to vote on a bill he (McConnell) was proposing, and instead of letting it go to a vote, he filibusterered his own bill. That to me is the epitome of either not sensible (don't propose what you don't want) or not logical (why did I offer my counterpart a bill under my name that I don't want when he has the authority to bring it to the floor) or reasonable (come on, are you going to argue it is reasonable to offer what you don't want, and then filibuster it?) So in short, the jury is out on Boehner because he is impotent, as far as McConnell, I find Reid and Pelosi both more sensible/logical/reasonable.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

The entire dialogue is nonsensical.
Job Creators? LOL what a fairy tail..that is complete horse sh..

Jobs are created by demand...period end of story, when demand is low then Government MUST stimulate growth, ALL the european countries that tryed austerity programs have abandoned them in favor of stimulus, yet people in here continue arguing that somehow its a smart thing to do.

Additionally,the whole ideology is false at its core, as is the sincereity of the party leaders....Did you know the two biggest Donators of the Republican Platform consider themselves social LIBERAL?
BOTH SHELDON ADELSON AND THE COKE BROTHERS HAVE SUPPPORTED AMONG OTHER THINGS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, GAY MARRIAGE,AND PRO CHOICE.
Chris Hayes wonderfully described the party as a group of missionaries and mercenaries

The point is like most plutocrats they only vote republican to avoid higher taxes.They completely buy and pay for the politicians on the RT.,who cant say a single word unless its been prepared for them,they want two things, the end of Unions, and lower taxes...so in a nut shell they only care about getting their hands on as much of the pie as they can, they are addicted to greed...and you trust them..LOL talk about delusional...

HAYES: Sheldon Adelson is both a formerly reclusive casino mogul and
the newly infamous $100 million bankroller of Republican campaigns and --
thanks to all that giving -- now the world`s biggest mark for hustling
Republican consultants. Mr. Adelson is the subject of a big splashy
interview today with "The Wall Street Journal" that is chock-full of
surprises.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
Exhibit A, quoting Mr. Adelson, "Look, I`m basically a social liberal.
I know no one will believe that." Clearly, he wants you to believe that.
He says he believes in stem cell research and abortion rights. Mr. Adelson
believes in the DREAM Act for immigration reform.

He believes in, this is a quote, "socialized-like health care."

"Wall Street Journal" reporting, quote, "He added that he used to be a
Democrat, like most Jewish Americans, he noted, until he attended the 1988
Democratic Convention. He said he was appalled at the self-interested
politicians he says were all over the place." Just appalled.

I`m sure politics and self-interest in the same place. If your irony
meter just broke, it is because it appears the same Sheldon Adelson who
says he rejected Democratic politics because of self-interested politicians
has become the single biggest donor in Republican politics because of --
yes, interest.

For instance, Mr. Adelson`s casino company is under investigation by
the Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. The Justice Department, of course, is led by an attorney
general, chosen by the president, in this case, the same President Obama
who Mr. Adelson just spent so much money trying to defeat. Mr. Adelson`s
company denies any wrongdoing.

And as a very rich man, Mr. Adelson stands to pay a whole, whole lot
more in taxes now that Mr. Obama has won a second term. And Mr. Adelson
says he intends to double his spending on conservative causes with a
particular focus on anti-union measures in the states.

Labor unions played a big part in Mr. Adelson`s conversion from
Democrat to Republican kingmaker. He fought with members picketing outside
his Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas. He tried to fight them in court, until
find the Supreme Court declined to take his case.

In testimony for the Nevada State Ethics Commission, future Democratic
congresswoman and unsuccessful candidate Shelly Berkley said Adelson had
told her that, quote, "Old Democrats were with the union and he wanted to
break the back of the union. Consequently, he had to break the back of the

Democrats."

That fight, the war with labor changed Sheldon Adelson from being just
another social liberal on the sidelines of Republican politics into Sheldon
Adelson, quite social liberal and contributor on an historic scale to
Republicans who do not share his social values and this goes to a
fundamental truth about the Republican Party.

And this goes to a fundamental truth about the Republican Party, which
is that the Republican Party in its current incarnation is a coalition
between missionaries and mercenaries. The Republican Party is made up of
true believers who are really committed to legislating against abortion
rights and immigration, and then you have plutocratic donors like Sheldon
Adelson, who are committed to their bank accounts and their God-given,
unfettered rights to do what they want to their workers and with their
money.

HAYES: Felix, as someone who reports on and moves in the circle of
extremely wealthy people, this kind of politics struck me immediately as
very common.

SALMON: Completely typical. I can`t remember the last time, if ever,
I`ve met some plutocrat, a rich person who opposes gay marriage. Like
Sheldon Adelson said today that he believes in gay marriage. And like,
this is -- even David Koch said that he believes in gay marriage.

The easy, liberal, verities seem to come very easy to these people,
just as long as, you said, it doesn`t impinge on their bank account.

HAYES: Right. This is like -- it`s hedge fund liberalism basically.

SALMON: Yes.

HAYES: The other thing that`s interesting, when you think about where
wealthy folks are, particularly with respect to the Obama administration.
And we saw all the data this year on Wall Street, the pendulum swinging
away from Barack Obama towards Mitt Romney, how much of it is genuine self-
interest in the sense of, just something as simple as the amount of taxes
they will pay?

SALMON: I would say all of it.

(LAUGHTER)

SALMON: I really would. I would say all of it.

The banks have two choices. Four years ago, they had the choice
between Barack Obama and they knew exactly who he was going to appoint in
terms of people like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke. They`ll become
continuation of the team which had saved the world from utter financial
collapse. And that`s what they knew they need.

And John McCain, on the other hand, was running around like a headless
chicken, and they were scared, they were petrified he would become
president, especially with his vice presidential candidate. So they voted
in their self-interest, because they knew that the system needed to be
saved.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
This time, now that the system is saved, they just want to pay less
taxes.

HAYES: Well, and that gets to this really interesting question of
narrow self-interest versus broad self-interest. In the case of Adelson, I
think, you know, the amount of taxes we`re talking about, this is really
important for people to understand, like when you`re talking these marginal
races, this is tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars for
people. I mean, there`s a ton of money on the table.

SALMON: If you`re earning like the president -- if you`re earning
$400,000 a year, you`re still paying less than top marginal rates on most
of your income. It`s only the last bit.

HAYES: Basically everything. But there`s also the sense in which the
self-interest is very narrow, insofar as when you look at corporate profits
being in nominal terms the highest they`ve ever been, right? When you talk
of, look at the Dow. There`s all sorts of economic indicators about the
health of the 1 percent, for lack of a better phrase, that things are going
great, right?

Why did that not -- why is that not the over-determining driver for
their political behavior?

SALMON: Because they know that if they elect Romney, that`s not going
to come to an end. They`re not going to suddenly --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: That`s baked into the structure of the American economy?

SALMON: They`re being given a choice between an economy which has
been fantastic for them. Capital has done really well. Labor has done
really badly.

They`re giving -- they`re saying, the current situation is great for
us. But now, we have two choices, between great and even better. Are and
given the choice, they`ll take even better.

HAYES: The other part of this that struck me is this sort -- you talk
about liberal pieties or whatever, the hatred of unions. I think that
people underestimate, don`t get -- and I`ve encountered this in my
reporting, how visceral, almost dogmatic, almost religious and ideological,
how fervently that belief is and how common that is among people who make a
ton of money.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices
SALMON: It`s one of the few times that you find a vague semblance of
ideology in these people, because they`re very practical, most of the time.
Whatever works in terms of making money is what they`ll all choose.

But you`re right, sometimes even when you show them the numbers and
say, listen, paying -- recognizing unions, you can be more profitable
overall, they don`t like that.

HAYES: Felix Salmon, "Thomson Reuters" finance blogger, who will be
live blogging in Davos in January, you should check that out -- thanks for
your time tonight.

I think the most important thing to take from this story is that the constant misrepresentation of fact and ficticious storylines fermented by the RT wing Media has created a constituency of delusional souls....Thats what being a Fox Zombie is all about....